|
|
|
Advertisements
|
|
|
|
DON’T BELIEVE IN GLOBAL WARMING? THEN GO TO
JAIL
Commentary by Harold Hough April/May 2008
It used to be that an honest difference of
opinions made for a good debate. Now, it can lead to jail – at least if one
Canadian environmentalist has his way.
As more and more evidence piles up that
questions global warming and even suggest global cooling, global warming
environmentalists are becoming more and more irrational. Take the case of
Canadian environmentalists David Suzuki, who in February attacked the mining of
tar sands in Northern Alberta at the McGill Business Conference on
Sustainability. He said, “We can no longer tolerate what’s going on in
Ottawa and Edmonton…What I would challenge you to do is to put a lot of effort
into trying to see whether there’s a legal way of throwing our so-called
leaders into jail because what they are doing is a criminal act…It’s an
intergenerational crime in the face of all the knowledge and science from over
20 years.” If that wasn’t bad enough, the attendees actually applauded.
Unfortunately, this intolerance is becoming
the norm amongst environmentalists who are growing frustrated at the failure of
the rest of the population to fall in lockstep behind them. If the
democratically elected politicians don’t consider global warming a threat or
prefer to keep the economy healthy, we must throw them into the poky. So much
for that motto, “Let’s celebrate our differences.”
The fact is that modern environmentalism is
rapidly becoming a threat to the freedoms we enjoy in the Western World. Czech
President Vaclav Klaus, who knows a thing or two about lost freedoms, now
considers environmental zealotry to be just as big a threat to human freedom as
communism. He writes in his book Our Planet is Blue, Not Green, “The
issue is – once again – freedom and its enemies…Those of us who feel very
strongly about it can never accept the irrationality with which the current
world has embraced climate change as a real danger to the future to mankind, as
well as the irrationality of measures because they will fatally endanger our
freedom and prosperity.”
Part of the problem is the current belief by
environmentalists that the world is really a living organism – Gaia. If the
earth is alive and all life is equally sacred, then mining tar sands in Canada
is just as bad (or possibly even worse) than killing a person.
This is a serious threat that many haven’t
recognized. The environmentalist’s mindset means more than smaller hybrid cars
and clean burning coal. It is a threat to the basic precepts of Western
Civilization.
Although it is an American document, the words
of the Declaration of Independence echo the basic precepts of the Western world,
“We hold these truths to be self evident, that all men are created equal and
are endowed by their Creator with certain inalienable rights, amongst these are
life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.” What that means is that God gave
us these rights and they can’t be surrendered to governments or anybody else
for any reason. It is the overarching principle of the Bill of Rights.
The philosophy of radical environmentalism
differs radically from the precepts of Western Civilization. Radical
environmentalism is based on the fact that that there is no god but Gaia, that
man has no inalienable God given rights, and as a subject of Gaia, is restricted
by the fact that his life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness may hurt Gaia. What
isn’t mentioned is that there are no longer inalienable rights.
Environmentalists see rights as something that can be revoked if it means
protecting Gaia.
This philosophy is now threatening the
inalienable right of democracy. As Suzuki made clear in his speech, if the
voters chose to ignore environmental issues in favor of a better economy, the
politicians who are elected should go to jail. We would become a one party state
– the Green Party. And, we know how much one party countries love freedom.
Would our other freedoms be far behind?
Environmental laws have already seriously eroded our property rights and other
rights could be impacted as well. Would questioning the validity of
environmental claims, and the environmentalists who make them, be considered
hate speech? The fact is that some people have already lost their jobs because
they questioned global warming.
Totalitarianism has had many face and we are
constantly being called upon to defeat it. Our fathers fought fascism and won.
Our generation fought communism and won. Our children are fighting radical Islam
and winning. However, radical eco-fascism is growing and becoming more
intolerant. It’s a threat we can’t ignore or negotiate with.
|
